Pit Bulls Have No Place In A Civilized Society! (New York, San Francisco, cities)

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by leangk

a gun can't make a descision on its own first of all. totally irrelevant

it is irrelevent because a gun is not a very accurate comparison to a pit bull or any other dog. there are parallels, such as the owner's capability to be destructive toward the rest of society, either through negligence, emotional instability, or premeditation.

but ultimately, they are very different. a dog–any dog–is inherently aggressive and predisposed to violence (they are hunters, no ifs, ands, or buts about it). a gun is inherently inanimate and incapable of *anything*. there is nothing similar in those two situations.

dogs are social animals, however, and can be made to see humans as pack members (meaning a general lack of hostility or aggression–assuming that the humans have competently taken the alpha roles in the pack). further, their genetic stock has been changed throughout millenia of domestication, to the point where they are more inclined to and capable of accepting a nonferal lifestyle alongside human beings.

problems arise though, when the dogs feel the need to revert to aggressive ways in order to survive, such as when their master stops acting as the alpha, and they feel the instinctive urge to take the reigns. humans try to treat dogs like they would treat other humans, assigning human traits, human desires, human capabilities, and even human thought processes to the dogs.

what does that do to the animals? it sends mixed signals, which only confuses and agitates the dog into acts of aggression and anxiety. i am pretty sure that we've all seen the milder incarnations of this anxiety: a mature dog chewing shoes or peeing on the carpet, chasing the mailman, nipping at children, stealing food, going crazy when their owners leave the house, destroying furniture, etc.

more drastic forms would be actual violence toward humans and other nonprey animals (again, the definition of nonprey varies by dog and by human master) and even self mutilation. medical problems can exacerbate these issues, and negligent owners can end up turning anxiety into paranoid violence.

these are all signs that a dog is in emotional turmoil because it doesn't know its place in the pack, which is *always* the fault of the alpha, in this case–the humans.

and yes pitbulls are different then other breeds. they are friggin muscles!!! thats the danger here. they don't attack more, but kill more and do more damage, thats the danger.

that is misinformation. pit bulls are one of the stronger breeds for their size, but they are not even remotely close to the strongest dogs. even the bite pressure statistics, as subjective and variable as they always are, show many other dog species to be mire powerful than pits.

not to mention, that you people are changing your stories. at first, pits are bad because they are rabid, baby-eating, human-aggressive monsters. now they're bad because they are simply "stronger than any other dog? (which again, is wrong)?

Originally Posted by momonkey

In the city I live in I would have been permitted to shoot you dog under those circumstances and I would have.

you do what you feel you need to to protect your family. just make sure that you are leaving the protecting of our families to us–we don't need you or others like you telling us what kind of dogs we are allowed to have, what kinds of hobbies we are allowed to be interested in, and what kind of belief systems we are allowed to adhere to.

Originally Posted by Greatday

The FACT remains, PitBulls, right or wrong, get the blame. AND, another FACT is, my comment about insurance carriers denying coverage. AND, another FACT is, housing providers (such as apartment complexes), will often not allow a Pit Bull (and several other breeds) to reside in the community.

it is definitely wrong, and whether or not insurance companies, home owners associations, and political figures have capitalized on that wrongness does not make it acceptable or right. the argument that you seem to be using is similar to saying that because politicians, schools, hospitals, courthouses, and other groups/locations have been trying to take away the guns of responsible firearm owners, whether right or wrong, they get what they deserve, because they are the scapegoats. sound logical?

Originally Posted by leangk

YET AGAIN you skip over the main point. does it take 8 bullets to take down a golden retriever??? no!!!

misinformation again. any dog can ignore pain when it wants to, and it can take several rounds, especially if the shooter doesn't know where to aim, to take down any animal. gunshot victims have survived having the backs of their heads blown out at close range, and most humans are not nearly as durable or tenacious as the everage dog.

also, someone later mentions that this is because of musculature, which it doesn't have much to do with if at all.

end of story.

not quite. just because you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore scientific facts doesn't mean that the rest of us have to live by your faulty choices.

These animals, aggressive or not, once they become violent for any reason (unprovoked, bothered ect) they will destroy whatever they want. not irrationally attack, but destroy anything because they are that powerful.

first of all, most of this could be said about any dog. once they become violent, there is a good chance that they will stay violent.

of course, we are using faulty definitions in this case, because all dogs are violent by nature. what we are talking about is human aggression, which i have already explained, whether some people want to believe me or not. those that don't want to are more than welcome to go do their own homework (which generally requires more than the media, youtube, and emotional reaction).

secondly, again, as already explained, these dogs are not "that powerful." these dogs are strong for their size. period. end of story. rottweilers are also strong for their size, and guess what, they weigh two to three times as much as a pit. wanna guess which dog is stronger?

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by miu

There are also many documented attacks by pit bulls that were NOT trained to be aggressive. They were family pets that turned on their owners and children.

and by nonpit dogs that were never trained to be aggressive. again, this has already been covered.

Pit bulls have a natural tendency to be dog aggressive.

you among all people, i would expect to have come to understand that *all* dogs have a natural tendancy to be dog aggressive. pits are moreso than others, but this is dog aggression,which is entirely different than human aggression (pack vs prey animals).

AND they have a strong terrier personality and they want to be the alpha of their pack. If their human handlers don't constantly maintain their alpha-ness over their pit bulls and pit bull mixes, that's another potential situation for aggressive behaviour.

now we are back to the subject of high maintenance dogs, which pits definitely are. but they are not even remotely close to the top of the list for high maintenance breeds. any of you ever owned a norwegian elkhound? a border collie?

we are now talking about the little sticker on the fish tank at the pet store that says whether the fish inside is for beginners, intermediate, or advanced aquarium keepers. we are not even close to being in the realm of "man-eating shark–enter at your own risk."

And they also can be provoked by staring children who are at the same eye level as they are. Also the act of running away from a dog like a pit bull will trigger them going into a predator mode.

i bolded the part of your statement that is key here; this applies to all dogs.

Also unfixed and unspayed pit bulls and pit bull mixes are particularly prone to becoming aggressive with the right situation and triggers.

that is definitely true, but again, it is true of all breeds, even the little lap dogs.

Originally Posted by Tambintime

All dogs have the ability to be dangerous. Only a fool would think otherwise.

exactly. they are all predators.

Originally Posted by Greatday

True enough.

But, only a few breeds have made it to the insurance industries "watch list" - where insurance (liability) can be denied if one of these certain breeds occupies a dwelling.

yeah, and at the turn of the century, when blacks were considered less than human, and couldn't vote, couldn't own property, couldn't even serve in the same military units as white people, they were also being demonized and victimized by stupid, self-serving stereotypes.

does that make it ok, just because it is the "in" thing to do?

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

i am sure if i found a civilized society there would be no pit bulls.

....

Originally Posted by Tambintime

Oh really? So a dog in the home will stop you getting home owners insurance? Who insures you?

there are insurance issues for some people in some areas if they have pits, rottweilers, and other "evil" dogs. it is a liability/public relations issue, and nothing more, and doesn't have anything to do with how dangerous dogs actually are. that is a fact.

Originally Posted by geeoro

I soooo agree with you.
Dogs are Dogs are Dogs. Unfortunately it's the moronic owners that make a Dog either placid or ferouscious. My family have owned all types of Dogs and NONE of them were pre conditioned to any kind of behaviour.

without getting into an argument about definitions with people again (about "ferocious," "evil," "malicious," etc), all dogs are inherently aggressive. but there are definitely things that humans can do to keep the dog from feeling the need to be aggressive (especially toward humans), and there are things that people can do that drive the dogs nuts and make them afraid of/aggressive toward their own shadows.

sad thing is that most of the things that people do to create negative environments for their animals are small and seemingly innocuous things, and the people rarely realize the level of ignorance with which they are acting toward the animal.

Originally Posted by ozzie679

Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada September 1982 to November 13, 2006

According to that report link . Pit bull Terriers accounted for 1110/2209 attacks that caused bodily harm. That's not including the Pit bull mixes. Second place goes to the Rottweiler at 409.

Pit lovers blame irresponsible owners, and I understand their point. But it doesn't support their case that this breed is (or can be) a safe.

statistics don't support our case? interesting, because they don't support anyone's point. these statistics are some of the most ridiculous out there. it even says in the second setence:

Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts
since 1982...

yes, and we all know how accurate, unbiased, and scientifically methodical the press is.

If a disproportionate number of Pits are in the possession of irresponsible owners, then what's the point of defending the breed?

because a disproprtionate number of dogs as a whole are in the possession of irresponsible owners, and to single out one breed among them is not only idiotic, but it is an emotional reaction, which is not what we ought to be using to set our political precedents (unless we are excited about the idea of returning to the dark ages).

Personally, I don't want Pit Bulls anywhere near my neighborhood. I have a fear of snakes and Pits.

as i said, emotional response. has nothing to do with reality. it is a perception, and one that in this country is gaining the momentum to victimize a lot of dogs that are caring, kind, and well-mannered.

The only way this breed can be trusted, is if there is an intense screening process to earn the right to be an owner or a breeder of a Pit Bull. And I mean very intense. It's the only way to get these dogs out of the hands of the dirtballs.

yes! but i think that this goes for *every* breed of dog. we are not just talking about a manufacturer of plastics or something. we are talking about the currently acceptable practices of raising dogs and other animals in horrendous conditions of abuse and neglect, and churning them out as if they were conveyor belt-mass productions.

Question for those who know about breeding. Is it possible that irresponsible owners and breeders can make each generation of Pits more vicious? Temperament can be bred can't it?

temperament is certainly a part of breeding, and certainly plays a role in the eventual evolution of a species.

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by geeoro

You have to understand that a disproportionate amount of pitt bulls are owned by people who get them for their reputation as a dangerous dog.

that is true. dogs have become another status symbol, right next to cars, jewelry, and women, sad but true. people are too caught up in appearances and status, and end up abusing others in their goals to reach the top of the social ladder.

They then train the dog to be feroscous and people wonder why these dogs then attack. You cannot train a dog to be feroucous and then put kids etc with them and expect them not to attack. My sister had a pitt and it was a absolute sweety. Cesar Millan has many pitt bulls and has had no trouble. The high numbers of pitt bulls attacking are due to the large proportion of Pitt bull owners who are Morons and get them for the wrong reasons.

i would bet that the high number of pit attacks is due more to a few other conditions:

first, irresponsible owners–yes, even the nice ones. the darling family that thinks that they are doing their dog a favor by letting it sleep with them in their beds, letting it eat under the table, etc. they are treating the dog that way because they think it is nice. in reality, they are assigning their own human emotions to the dog, and then expecting it to react in a human way. what they are doing though is telling the dog that it needs to step up and control the pack, because they aren't capable of doing it.

second, i'd cite the ridiculous nature of dog bite statistics in general, and say that pits probably don't even make up a "disproportionately high" amount of actual dog attacks.

Originally Posted by momonkey

First of all I applaud Brittan for at least making an effort to protect its children even if they were not completely successful in eradicating these dangerous animals. Now the question for you is the same question I've been asking all along. What benefit is it to punish a dog or dog owner after a child has been mauled or killed? How does this undo what has taken place?

successful in eradicating these dangerous animals? i think that we've done a pretty good job of (repeatedly) responding to your questions, challenges, and outrageous emotional breakdowns, and you have yet to offer any sort of conversation regarding any of the points that we've brought up. doesn't sound like you really want a debate or intelligent conversation here when you keep ignoring everything that doesn't fit with your tiny view of the world.

as iphwalls mentioned, no one is saying that we ought to wait until people get hurt. we need to fix the problem, but the problem is not pit bulls, and it is not any other breed of dog. the problem is the idiots of the world that think that they can take in a predator and treat it as a civilized human. by your many posts here, i am pretty confident that you are part of that very problem.

Originally Posted by ozzie679

Fortunately for the Labrador, they are not a breed that thugs, drug dealers, and scumbags find very exciting.

I'm telling ya, legislation is coming against the Pit Bull.

misinformation in the first part–the "evil" dog breeds seem to shift with the political climate. is that evolution, or just human stupifity? definitely true in the second part, especially since local legislations are already in hysterics about the breed.

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

My question for Pit owners is, what is the obsession? Why must you own a dangerous dog? Is it the 'tough guy' compensation?

this is exactly the dangerous mentality that i am talking about. it is dog owners that think like this that get children hurt.

they buy a dog with the idea that it is tame, or civilized, clapping themselves on the back because they took some self-conceived moral high road and didn't get a "dangerous" dog. then, after years (sometimes days, weeks, or months is all it takes) of humanization, neglect, and other brands of abuse, they wonder why their dog has behavior problems, and either take them to the shelter with the claim that it is a bad dog, or they take it to the shelter to be put to sleep after it has bitten someone.

i see this very often, and the majority of these cases are with dogs other than pit bulls.

for the billionth time, all dog breeds are dangerous, all dog breeds are unpredictable, and all dog breeds routinely have violent encounters with humans when they are not brought up properly. further there are oddballs among every dog breed (not just pits), that defy training and decent upbringings, just as there are in the human world. pits are dogs, are predatory pack animals, are animals–are *not* humans, or capable of conforming to human society. period.

some of you obviously think that your dogs are conforming to human society. they are not. they still live the laws of the wild that are in their blood–they just adopt humans as pack members, and when done right, pack alphas. you are living in dog society; your dog is not living in human society.

when you make the mistake of thinking otherwise, you get people hurt, you get (generally) otherwise good dogs put down for actions that they don't understand to be "wrong,"–and none of that is breed specific. it is dog specific, and likely, animal specific.

We did a paper in College based on dog breeds and what they can do and the only thing a Pit did better than some other less dangerous breed was when it was used to hunt hogs.

great... so you wrote a paper that you didn't research all that thoroughly. i'm not particularly impressed. honestly, many dogs have overlapping specialties, and you don't need to make sure you get the "right one for the job," since there is hardly ever such a circumstance that the "right one" exists. unless you want to start mandating that people only buy/adopt certain breeds depending on their perceived needs in life, i'd back off of this faulty argument.

That's not much of a reason to own a dangerous breed? In most cases people interviewed said why they chose a Pit was: Because they can.

first of all, pit bulls have huge redeeming qualities and do many things very well, and your *opinion* that they aren't good enough doesn't quite carry the weight of gospel truth.

secondly, i am calling your bluff about that "most cases" claim. feel free to post your paper and sources on the forum if you'd like, because otherwise you are trying to argue that against a forum full of people that own, have owned, or are intimately connected to owners of pits that have a great number of reasons beyond "because i can."

if you need to, you repoll us as your statistical group; wanna take a guess as to how many of us will use your lame excuse? i'm betting zero.

Originally Posted by miu

Here's just one news story about a woman killed by her two pure bred pit bulls that she raised from puppies as house pets.

but again, i can pull media reports of fatal dog attacks involving other breeds, but it doesn't matter. news articles are not indicative of the actual nature of ANY dog breed, no matter how you want to believe that it is.

[Harley_man]

Originally Posted by MisterNY

You guys are still at it, over these dumb Pit Bulls? Forget about it.

All I'm saying is if one gets in my yard, he'll be treated like a thief (putting me and my family in danger). Yes, they are vicious. And I will be prepared for it.

To those who love them, good for you. All I can say is, it will only be a matter of time before you become their lunch. Once it happens, tell us about it (once you see the light).

I'm glad they are being banned in some cities/counties. To those who don't like the dogs or feel strongly about their danger, put your money and energy out there to get them banned in your city/county. It's only a matter of time before these dogs do something stupid to prove your point (that they're vicious).

As I stated earlier, any dog can bite, but Pit Bulls do it in prevalence. They also do more damage.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!. Yes people nevermind saving your money to put your kids through private school or saving for their college, or spending your time with your kids, you should spend your money and time trying to get these dogs banned from your city or county. A whopping 1% of the human poplulation in the united states has been attacked every year since 1994. My advice spend your energy helping you kids with homework and keeping them away from drugs.

[Harley_man]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

My question for Pit owners is, what is the obsession? Why must you own a dangerous dog? Is it the 'tough guy' compensation?

We did a paper in College based on dog breeds and what they can do and the only thing a Pit did better than some other less dangerous breed was when it was used to hunt hogs.

That's not much of a reason to own a dangerous breed? In most cases people interviewed said why they chose a Pit was: Because they can.

My pit bull is 60 pounds. How is that me trying to be a tough guy. Most labs out weigh my dog by 50 pounds and they are twice as big. I enjoy a dog that is intelligant, loyal, can run 5 miles with me, and has short hair so i'm not picking up lumps of dog hair everywhere.

[Harley_man]

Originally Posted by Cav Scout wife

Well your neighbor and friend are IDIOTS. No offense, but it doesn't take hardly ANY common sense to know it's NEVER a good idea to have a HIGH ENERGY breed cooped up in a city like NYC. Too much energy and no productive outlet leads to ill behavior and problems.

I have a pit mix, and he has acres of room to run, and he's no problem, neither is my mini schnauzer who is his older sister and his cuddle buddy. Yes, they have gotten into 1 fight in the past, but it was due to Buttons (the mini) being in a bad mood, and she ran Pugsley off, and he refused to attack her in ANY way, in fact he jumped up on the bed behind me and hid like a p****y!!!! (but even knowing that, I never leave them alone w/o crating them, they cry and whine, but with Buttons' medical issues, I don't want her to have a bad day and them get into it)


HAHAHA that is so true!! People in big cities like New York and San Francisco get a dog like a pit bull that needs alot exercise and needs alot of mental stimulation and they keep it in an apartment all day. Then they wonder why the "family dog" attacked. It's astonishing how stupid some people can be when it comes to dog psychology.

There are a few things ANY pit bull owner must ALWAYS remember.
1. Never trust your dog not to fight. (it is genetic, but training can prevent it to an extent, but 90% of the time it is still there, unless your dog is a product of curs)
2. A good dog is a TIRED dog. (and I can argue that for ANY breed!)
3. I fully believe in nature Vs nurture (when it comes to training) (you can teach ANY dog to do anything, and can teach ANY dog NOT to do anything)
4. I believe that if you treat an animal well (yes this includes humans!), with love, compassion, and mutual respect; they will do anything you wish ( which is part of the problem with pittys, they were bred to blindly follow humans, which is causing the problem today).

I guess I am different that quite a few of you. I will give any animal a chance, and usually more than a few chances before I discredit that specific animal as a loss.

HAHAHA that is so true!! People in big cities like New York and San Francisco get a dog like a pit bull that needs alot exercise and needs alot of mental stimulation and they keep it in an apartment all day. Then they wonder why the "family dog" attacked. It's astonishing how stupid some people can be when it comes to dog psychology!!!!!!!!!!!

[NVplumber]

I have had a LOT of experience with different breeds of dogs and their temperments and predispositions. We live in a very rural area and the city dicks that no longer want their pets seem to think that a drive out to the sticks and booting their critter out in proximity to our place is a good way to solve their problem. Sometimes these hapless animals wander in to the yard searching out human contact and sometimes they go wild and start killing stock. I've had Pits, Golden Retrievers, Chows, nondescript mutts...to many types to list that I have had to deal with. I have never had to shoot a pure bred Pit as a threat, but I have certainly had some nasty dogs come a calling. The worst types were always mixed breeds of various lineage. When a dog goes feral, breeding is irrelevant , however. I can't bring myself to blame the dog for letting instinct take over, but I have certainly cussed their previous owners, whomever they may have been. Dumping animals should be a far more serious crime than it is treated as, whether it's Pits or any other type of animal that is dumped. The blame needs to be put where it belongs, with people, not the animal. A Pit Bull is no different than any other canine. There is no logic in the arguement that Pits are any more predisposed to violent tendencies than any other large breed dog. As a matter of fact, the most ornery dogs I have come across are cattle dogs. They make the nastiest Pit Bull seem tame by comparison, but, they are products of their environment, not their breeding.

[Harley_man]

Originally Posted by MisterNY

This post just takes the cake. Talking about absurd..

People pleasers? What are you? A Dog shrink? .....You're not making sense at all at this point. Your post made no sense.

Blind hatred? I don't think so. I just found evidence to show to you Pitt Lovers that they are not docile, playful animals you make them out to be. Are these videos made up? Get off your high horses. I just pulled your cards, that's all. Go make videos that prove otherwise. How about that?

OH Yeah, the news made all these up? GTH outta here with that nonsense.

I've encountered enough strays in my life that were not Pits that did not bite me, so again your point is moot. Many of these dogs belonged to people that lived in decent neighborhoods, and family pets (I dont know what they were thinking ).

Did you see the video with the guy who lived in a nice subdivision that did not want to speak to the news reporter after his dog bit the lady and her dogs? Was he a fighting dog trainer? I don't think so...

Did you see the one that tore up the neighbor's Labrador? Again, not a fighting dog. The owner was surprised. I don't know why.

So you have explaining to do. Man you guys got your butts served, and want to turn this against me. I'm not the one that bit your kids, these dogs you call nice docile animals were the ones.

You have given about 20 examples at most on here, in a society where 304 million people live, and telling people they got their butts served with your examples Maybe you should of opted to take statistics in college instead of theater. With your logic we should get rid of air planes because of the 79 plane crashes around the world in 2008. Even though millions of flights arrive safetly everday.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by stycotl

it is definitely wrong, and whether or not insurance companies, home owners associations, and political figures have capitalized on that wrongness does not make it acceptable or right. the argument that you seem to be using is similar to saying that because politicians, schools, hospitals, courthouses, and other groups/locations have been trying to take away the guns of responsible firearm owners, whether right or wrong, they get what they deserve, because they are the scapegoats. sound logical?

I deal with issues relating to reality. And, regardless of your response that it is "definitely wrong" that Pit Bulls be put into the dangerous category, the FACT IS, they ARE in that category by different segments of our country - including the Insurance companies.

AND, the REALITY of this being the case is, those who have a Pit (or one of the other breeds listed) may have to pay MORE for their insurance OR, be unable to get liability insurance at all, because of the animal. This is FACT and NOT supposition.

My personal feelings, or YOUR personal feelings, are meaningless in the area I'm speaking of.

Are they Scapegoats? With all the attacks I hear, and read about, in my area (where I live) that involve Pit Bulls, my instinct is to say "NO", they are not being made to be scapegoats.

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I deal with issues relating to reality. And, regardless of your response that it is "definitely wrong" that Pit Bulls be put into the dangerous category, the FACT IS, they ARE in that category by different segments of our country - including the Insurance companies.

AND, the REALITY of this being the case is, those who have a Pit (or one of the other breeds listed) may have to pay MORE for their insurance OR, be unable to get liability insurance at all, because of the animal. This is FACT and NOT supposition.

My personal feelings, or YOUR personal feelings, are meaningless in the area I'm speaking of.

Are they Scapegoats? With all the attacks I hear, and read about, in my area (where I live) that involve Pit Bulls, my instinct is to say "NO", they are not being made to be scapegoats.

and what i am telling you is that you are arguing one direction on the gun threads, and anther in the breed ban threads, when they are the same issue: fear-bred legislation that does not touch the real issues behind them.

what you are saying is that, right or wrong, since people seem to hate pits, then we should allow them to be restricted/banned.

the nightly news has more stories by far of gun violence, so why should that be any different?

it shouldn't. it is the same people with the same knee-jerk reactions that are trying to ban everything from guns, to dogs, to toothbrushes, with no real goal except reelection or liability control, and none of it has anything to do with the root of the problem–the people. they just go after whatever symptom of the problem they feel that they can wrangle.

what i am saying, regardless of your feelings or my feelings, is that the majority of pit bulls *never* have a problem. period.

sound familiar? kinda like how the majority of guns are never used for violent crime. and yet, what do we see? stupid politicians serving more of a dramatic or entertainment role with their horror stories and fear legislations than as thinking, rational, selfless individuals bent on actually solving a problem.